Non-natives: 141
scientists object
Non-natives: plusses
of invasion ecology
We the undersigned feel that
in advocating a change in the
environmental management
of introduced species (Nature
474, 153–154; 2011), Mark
Davis and colleagues assail two
straw men.
First, most conservation
biologists and ecologists
do not oppose non-native
species per se — only those
targeted by the Convention
on Biological Diversity as
threatening “ecosystems,
habitats or species”. There
is no campaign against all
introductions: scarcity of
resources forces managers
to prioritize according to the
impact of troublesome species,
as in the Australian Weed Risk
Assessment.
Second, invasion biologists
and managers do not ignore the
benefits of introduced species.
They recognize that many nonnative species curtail erosion
and provide food, timber and
other services. Nobody tries to
eradicate wheat, for instance.
Useful non-native species may
sometimes still need to be
managed because they have a
negative impact, such as tree
invasions that cause water loss in
the South African fynbos.
Davis and colleagues
downplay the severe impact of
non-native species that may not
manifest for decades after their
introduction — as occurred
with the Brazilian pepper shrub
(Schinus terebinthifolius) in
Florida (J. J. Ewel in Ecology of
Biological Invasions of North
America and Hawaii (eds
H. A. Mooney and J. A. Drake)
214–230; Springer, 1986). Also,
some species may have only a
subtle immediate impact but
affect entire ecosystems, for
example through their effect
on soils.
Pronouncing a newly
introduced species as harmless
Contrary to the implications of
Mark Davis and colleagues
(Nature 474, 153–154; 2011),
invasion ecology has given us
valuable insight into the effects
of new species on ecological
function and into some of the
precipitous changes we may face
in the coming decades.
Invasion ecologists generally
assert that only a very small
fraction of non-native species
harm their new ecosystems.
This position emerged as early
as 1986 and was mainstream in
the era that Davis and colleagues
claim as the nadir of ecological
nativism.
It is unfair to characterize
any scientific discipline solely
by past failures and to ignore
its successes. Invasion ecology
is making real progress
with defining impact and
characterizing risk. Let’s not
throw up our hands in despair
just yet.
Julie L. Lockwood Rutgers, The
State University of New Jersey,
USA.
lockwood@aesop.rutgers.edu
Martha F. Hoopes Mount
Holyoke College, Massachusetts,
USA.
Michael P. Marchetti California
State University, California, USA.
can lead to bad decisions about
its management. A species added
to a plant community that has no
evolutionary experience of that
organism should be carefully
watched.
For some introductions,
eradication is possible. For
example, 27 invasive species
have been eradicated from the
Galapagos Islands, mitigating
severe adverse effects on
endemic species. Harmful
invasive species have been
successfully kept in check
by biological, chemical and
mechanical means.
The public must be vigilant
of introductions and continue
to support the many successful
management efforts.
Daniel Simberloff* University of
Tennessee, Tennessee, USA.
dsimberloff@utk.edu
*On behalf of 141 signatories
(see go.nature.com/f1eqjn).
Non-natives: put
biodiversity at risk
Bias against non-native species
is not xenophobic (Nature 474,
153–154; 2011) — it has a sound
scientific foundation.
The non-native status of
a species is highly relevant
to assessing its potential
environmental and economic
impact. Unrestrained growth
and environmental damage
follow when there are no natural
enemies in newly colonized
areas. This is not necessarily
a sign of an invader’s superior
evolutionary fitness: it may lead
to a population collapse due to
overexploitation of resources.
Non-native species can
increase the variety of species
in a community, but it is an
oversimplification to equate this
with increased biodiversity, of
which species richness is only
one component. Surviving
populations of native species
may shrink or become restricted
to poor-quality marginal
habitats. Such unevenness hardly
contributes to a more diverse
community.
The genetic diversity of
invaded communities may
decrease because of bottlenecks:
native genotypes disappear as
populations fall, whereas the
invaders originate from very few
initial colonizers.
Establishment of non-native
species inevitably decreases
global diversity. Australia, for
example, was unique in having
no placental mammals; their
introduction by humans made
the continent ecologically more
similar to the rest of the world.
Andrei Alyokhin University of
Maine, Maine, USA.
andrei.alyokhin@umit.maine.edu
© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
Non-natives: four
risk factors
Mark Davis et al. set an
unrealistically high bar for those
making management decisions
about exotic species (Nature
474, 153–154; 2011). Control is
often easier, cheaper and more
effective soon after detection
(R. A. Haack et al. Annu. Rev.
Entomol. 55, 521–546; 2010).
We agree that research on
ecosystem impact is necessary,
but such studies can take years.
Meanwhile, we suggest that
OMMENT
control priorities for potential
invasive species could be based
on easily available data about
natural history and evolutionary
ecology. We propose four
guidelines for identifying such
invasives.
An exotic organism may be
more likely to invade and cause
disruption the greater its rate
of reproduction; the greater its
dispersal ability; the closer
(phylogenetically) its preferred
food in its native range is to
an abundant taxon in the new
range; and the farther away
(phylogenetically) its predators
and pathogens are in its native
range from those in its new
range.
For example, the red
turpentine beetle (Dendroctonus
valens) is not particularly
disruptive in its native range
in North America because it
attacks only trees that are
already weakened. In China it
attacks and kills healthy trees
(Z. Yan et al. Biodivers. Conserv.
14, 1735–1760; 2005). The
reasons for this beetle’s success
as an invasive include its high
dispersal and reproductive
rates, its affinity for Chinese
pines closely related to those
it feeds on ‘at home’, and the lack
of predators or pathogens
phylogenetically similar to ones
found in North America.
Manuel Lerdau Xishuangbanna
Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese
Academy of Sciences, Menglun,
Yunnan, China; and University of
Virginia, Virginia, USA.
mlerdau@virginia.edu
Jacob D. Wickham Institute of
Chemistry, Chinese Academy of
Sciences, Beijing, China.
UK cancer genetics
gets personal
There is a promising way in
which personalized medicine
can be incorporated into healthservice infrastructure (Nature
473, 253–254; 2011). In the
United Kingdom, the charity
Cancer Research UK is leading
a partnership with AstraZeneca,
Pfizer and the government’s
Technology Strategy Board to
help the National Health Service
to adopt a consistent approach to
genetic testing for targeted cancer
therapies, and to promote further
research into personalized
treatment.
The first phase will run
from 2011 to 2013 and cost
£5.5 million (US$8.8 million).
The programme will model
the processes required for
routine testing of tumour
molecular characteristics and
for secure storage and retrieval
of molecular and clinical data
for research. It will involve seven
Experimental Cancer Medicine
Centres and 9,000 patients with
one of six tumour types: breast,
colorectal, lung, prostate, ovary
and metastatic melanoma. Up to
22 mutations will be tested, with
the aim of harmonizing practices
across the centres and labs.
The second phase will establish
a molecular diagnostics service to
deliver high-quality, standardized
tests for patients nationwide
and to obtain routine consent
for the collection, storage and
research use of data on genetics,
treatments and outcomes. The
long-term strategy includes the
flexibility to accommodate new
technologies, other cancer types
and other disease areas.
Cancer Research UK is in
discussion with similar
initiatives in the United States,
France, Australia and elsewhere
to exchange information on
mistakes and successes.
David Wiseman, Alice Tuff,
James Peach Cancer Research
UK, London, UK.
david.wiseman@cancer.org.uk
Nuclear winter was
and is debatable
Alan Robock’s contention that
there has been no real scientific
debate about the ‘nuclear winter’
concept is itself debatable
(Nature 473, 275–276; 2011).
This potential climate disaster,
popularized in Science in 1983,
rested on the output of a onedimensional model that was
later shown to overestimate
the smoke a nuclear holocaust
might engender. More refined
estimates, combined with
advanced three-dimensional
models (see go.nature.com/
kss8te), have dramatically
reduced the extent and severity
of the projected cooling.
Despite this, Carl Sagan,
who co-authored the 1983
Science paper, went so far as to
posit “the extinction of Homo
sapiens” (C. Sagan Foreign
Affairs 63, 75–77; 1984). Some
regarded this apocalyptic
prediction as an exercise in
mythology. George Rathjens of
the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology protested: “Nuclear
winter is the worst example of
the misrepresentation of science
to the public in my memory,”
(see go.nature.com/yujz84) and
climatologist Kerry Emanuel
observed that the subject had
“become notorious for its lack of
scientific integrity” (Nature 319,
259; 1986).
Robock’s single-digit fall in
temperature is at odds with
the subzero (about –25 °C)
continental cooling originally
projected for a wide spectrum
of nuclear wars. Whereas Sagan
predicted darkness at noon
from a US–Soviet nuclear
conflict, Robock projects
global sunlight that is several
orders of magnitude brighter
for a Pakistan–India conflict —
literally the difference between
night and day. Since 1983, the
projected worst-case cooling
has fallen from a Siberian deep
freeze spanning 11,000 degreedays Celsius (a measure of the
severity of winters) to numbers
so unseasonably small as to call
the very term ‘nuclear winter’
into question.
Russell Seitz Massachusetts,
USA.
seitz@physics.harvard.edu
indicates that women as a
group are disproportionately
overlooked. Why?
Gender schemas —
cognitive structures that
summarize our beliefs about
the sexes — portray women
primarily as nurturing and
communal, and men as capable
of independent action and
work-oriented (V. Valian Why
So Slow? The Advancement of
Women; MIT Press, 1998). Such
schemas mean that women’s
names are unlikely to come to
nominators’ minds; if women
are considered, they are less
likely than men to be perceived
as prizeworthy (see also Nature
469, 472; 2011).
Prizes matter in part because
young women with scientific
abilities and interests are more
likely to aim high if they see
examples of women receiving
top awards. Why stay in a
field where you have little
chance of recognition? We are
squandering the abilities of half
the human race.
Prize committees need to learn
where, how and why our
perceptions give men an edge.
Committees also need actively to
solicit nominations of women and
members of under-represented
groups. Few guidelines, including
those for the Kavli prize, include
such encouragements. It is time
to stop this cycle of neglect of
outstanding women in science.
Virginia Valian Hunter College
and CUNY Graduate Center, New
York, USA.
virginia.valian@hunter.cuny.edu
CORRECTIONS
All-male line-up
yet again
Most prestigious prizes in
science that are not set aside for
women go primarily or only to
men. The eight male 2010 Kavli
prizewinners in astrophysics,
nanoscience and neuroscience
are the most recent examples
(see go.nature.com/5xh17n).
The Kavli winners are
accomplished and deserve their
honours. But the frequency
of all-male line-ups, and the
number of meritorious women,
An editing change (T. Leitner
et al. Nature 473, 284;
2011) confused the point
that phylogenetic experts
should formulate an a priori
hypothesis based on HIV
epidemiological information.
B. Bosquet (Nature 474, 36;
2011) notes that Cameroon’s
REDD Project Idea Note was
prepared with the WWF’s full
support. Nature’s headline was
not intended to undermine
efforts by governmental
and non-governmental
organizations.
7 J U LY 2 0 1 1 | VO L 4 7 5 | N AT U R E | 3 7
© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
COMMENT CORRESPONDENCE
Supplementary information to:
Non-natives: 141 scientists object
Full list of co-signatories to a Correspondence published in Nature 475, 36 (2011); doi: 10.1038/475036a.
Daniel Simberloff University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee,
USA.
dsimberloff@utk.edu
Jake Alexander Institute of Integrative Biology, Zurich, Switzerland.
Fred Allendorf University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, USA.
James Aronson CEFE/CNRS, Montpellier, France.
Pedro M. Antunes Algoma University, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario,
Canada.
Sven Bacher University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Richard Bardgett Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Sandro Bertolino University of Turin, Grugliasco, Italy.
Melanie Bishop Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Tim M. Blackburn Zoological Society of London, London, UK.
April Blakeslee Smithsonian Environmental Research Center,
Edgewater, Maryland, USA.
Dana Blumenthal USDA Agricultural Research Service, Fort Collins,
Colorado, USA.
Alejandro Bortolus Centro Nacional Patagónico-CONICET, Puerto
Madryn, Argentina.
Ralf Buckley Griffith University, Southport, Queensland, Australia.
Yvonne Buckley CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences and The University of
Queensland, ARC Centre of Excellence in Environmental Decisions, St
Lucia, Queensland, Australia.
Jeb Byers The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA.
Ragan M. Callaway University of Montana, Missoula, Montana,
USA.
Faith Campbell The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia, USA.
Karl Campbell Island Conservation, Santa Cruz, California, USA.
Marnie Campbell Central Queensland University, Queensland,
Australia.
James T. CarltonWilliams College — Mystic Seaport, Mystic,
Connecticut, USA.
Phillip Cassey University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia,
Australia.
Jane Catford The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria,
Australia.
Laura Celesti-Grapow Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
John Chapman Hatfield Marine Science Center, Oregon State
University, Newport, Oregon, USA.
Paul Clark Natural History Museum, London, UK.
Andre Clewell Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida
USA.
João Canning Clode Smithsonian Environmental Research Center,
Edgewater, Maryland USA
Andrew Chang Smithsonian Environmental Research Center,
Edgewater, Maryland, USA.
Milan Chytrý Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Mick Clout University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Andrew Cohen Center for Research on Aquatic Bioinvasions,
Richmond, California, USA.
Phil Cowan Landcare Research, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Robert H. Cowie University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
Alycia W. Crall Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado,
USA.
Jeff Crooks Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve,
Imperial Beach, California, USA.
Marty Deveney South Australian Aquatic Sciences Centre,West
Beach, Australia.
1 | N AT U R E | S U p p l E m E N TA R y i N f o R m AT i o N
Kingsley Dixon Kings Park and Botanic Garden,West Perth,
Australia.
Fred C. Dobbs Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, USA.
David Cameron Duffy University of Hawaii Manoa, Honolulu,
Hawaii, USA.
Richard Duncan Lincoln University, Lincoln, New Zealand.
Paul R. Ehrlich Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Lucius Eldredge Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
Neal Evenhuis Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
Kurt D. Fausch Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado,
USA.
Heike Feldhaar University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany.
Jennifer Firn Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane,
Queensland, Australia.
Amy Fowler Smithsonian Environmental Research Center,
Edgewater, Maryland, USA.
Bella Galil National Institute of Oceanography, Haifa, Israel. Emili
Garcia-Berthou Universitat de Girona, Girona, Spain. Jonathan
Geller Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, Moss Landing, California,
USA.
Piero Genovesi Italian National Institute for Environmental
Protection and Research, Rome, Italy.
Esther Gerber CABI Europe, Delemont, Switzerland.
Francesca Gherardi Universita’ di Firenze, Firenze, Italy.
Stephan Gollasch Hamburg, Germany.
Doria Gordon University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Jim Graham Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Paul Gribben University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.
Blaine Griffen Smithsonian Environmental Research Center,
Edgewater, Maryland, USA.
Edwin D. Grosholz University of California, Davis, California, USA.
Chad Hewitt Central Queensland University, Queensland, Australia.
José L. Hierro CONICET-Universidad Nacional de La Pampa, La
Pampa, Argentina.
Philip Hulme Lincoln University, Lincoln, New Zealand. Pat
Hutchings Australian Museum, Sydney, Australia. Vojtěch
Jarošík Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Chris Johnson University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
Ladd Johnson Université Laval, Ville de Québec, Quebec, Canada.
Emma L. Johnston University of New South Wales, Sydney,
Australia.
Carl G. Jones Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, Jersey, Channel
Islands, UK.
Reuben Keller University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Carolyn M. King University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Bart G. J. Knols Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands; K&S Consulting, Dodewaard, the Netherlands.
Johannes Kollmann Technische Universität München, Freising,
Germany.
Thomas Kompas The Australian National University, Canberra,
Australia.
Peter M. Kotanen University of Toronto at Mississauga, Mississauga,
Ontario, Canada.
Ingo Kowarik Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Ingolf Kühn Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung, Halle,
Germany.
Sabrina Kumschick Colorado State University, Fort Collins,
Colorado, USA.
CORRESPONDENCE COMMENT
Brian Leung McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Andrew Liebhold USDA Forest Service, Morgantown, West Virginia,
USA.
Hugh MacIsaac University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
Richard Mack Washington State University, Pullman, Washington,
USA.
Deborah G. McCullough Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan, USA.
Robbie McDonald The Food and Environmental Research Agency,
Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, Stonehouse,
UK.
David M. Merritt United States Forest Service, Fort Collins,
Colorado, USA.
Laura Meyerson University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island,
USA.
Dan Minchin Marine Organism Investigations, Killaloe, Ireland.
Harold A. Mooney Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Jeffrey T. Morisette United States Geological Survey, Fort Collins
Science Center, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Peter Moyle University of California, Davis, California, USA.
Heinz Müller-Schärer Université de Fribourg/Pérolles, Fribourg,
Switzerland.
Brad R. Murray University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Stefan Nehring Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn, Germany.
Wendy Nelson National Institute of Water and Atmospheric
Research, Wellington, New Zealand.
Wolfgang Nentwig University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Stephen J. Novak Boise State University, Boise, Idaho, USA.
Anna Occhipinti Universita di Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Henn Ojaveer University of Tartu, Pärnu, Estonia.
Bruce Osborne University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Richard S. Ostfeld Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook,
New York, USA.
John Parker Smithsonian Environmental Research Center,
Edgewater, Maryland, USA.
Judith Pederson Worcester, Massachusetts, USA.
Jan Pergl Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Pruhonice,
Czech Republic.
Megan L. Phillips University of Technology Sydney, Sydney,
Australia.
Petr Pyšek Academy of Sciences, Průhonice, Czech Republic.
Marcel Rejmánek University of California, Davis, California, USA.
Anthony Ricciardi McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Carlo Ricotta University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, Rome, Italy.
David Richardson Stellenbosch University, Matieland, South Africa.
Gil Rilov National Institute of Oceanography, Haifa, Israel.
Euan Ritchie Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.
Peter A. Robertson Food and Environment Research Agency, York, UK.
Joe Roman University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA.
Gregory Ruiz Smithsonian Environmental Research Center,
Edgewater, Maryland, USA.
Hanno Schaefer Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
USA.
Britta Schaffelke Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville,
Australia.
Kristina A. Schierenbeck California State University, Chico,
California, USA.
Don C. Schmitz Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.
Evangelina Schwindt Centro Nacional Patagónico-CONICET,
Puerto Madryn, Argentina.
Jim Seeb University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
L. David Smith Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts, USA.
Gideon F. Smith University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
Thomas Stohlgren Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado,
USA.
David L. Strayer Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, New
York, USA.
Donald Strong University of California, Davis, California,USA.
William J. Sutherland University of Cambridge , Cambridge, UK.
Thomas Therriault Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, British
Columbia, Canada.
Wilfried Thuiller Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, France.
Mark Torchin Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa,
Panama.
Wim van der Putten Netherlands Institute of Ecology, Wageningen,
the Netherlands.
Montserrat Vilà Estación Biológica de Doñana, Sevilla, Spain.
Betsy Von Holle University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida,
USA.
Inger Wallentinus University of Gothenburg, Goteborg, Sweden.
David Wardle Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå,
Sweden.
Mark Williamson University of York, York, UK.
John Wilson Stellenbosch University, Matieland, South Africa.
Marten Winter Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung, Halle,
Germany.
Lorne M. Wolfe Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia,
USA.
Jeff Wright The University of Tasmania, Launceston, Australia.
Marjorie Wonham Quest University, Squamish, British Columbia,
Canada.
Chela Zabin Smithsonian Environmental Research Center,
Edgewater, Maryland, USA.
S U p p l E m E N TA R y i N f o R m AT i o N | N AT U R E | 2